Promises to get data retention, privacy policies in place later.

This sign was seen outside the Oakland City Council meeting on Tuesday evening.

Cyrus Farivar

OAKLAND, CA—At a regularly scheduled city council meeting last night, the Oakland City Council unanimously accepted a $2 million federal grant that would create a round-the-clock "Domain Awareness Center" (DAC) in the West Coast port city. In doing so, Oakland thrust itself into the forefront of the national debate about surveillance and its limits—and two dozen vociferous protestors shouted "shame, shame, shame!" as the council voted after midnight to accept the money.

A May 2013 DAC slide (PDF) from a presentation by the Port of Oakland shows that the system would combine not only existing surveillance cameras and thermal imaging devices at the Port of Oakland, but also the Oakland Police Department's license plate readers, ShotSpotter gunshot detection devices, CCTV cameras, surveillance cameras at Oakland city schools, and dozens of other cameras from regional law enforcement agencies, including the California Highway Patrol. According to that schedule, the DAC should be fully operational by the end of June 2014, and it will aggregate more than 1,000 camera feeds.

Enlarge/ The Port of Oakland's own May 2013 slide describes combining over 1,000 cameras.

Port of Oakland

"Currently, the system is activated in times of emergency. If it is completed by July 2014, then we would be looking to staff the facility on a 24/7 basis," Renee Domingo, the city's director of emergency services and homeland security, told the council.

She added that the federal government would provide grants for the operation of the facility for the first two years, but that after that, it would be incumbent on the Port and the City of Oakland to staff the DAC.

Both the council and Domingo seemed unclear at times about how many cameras in total would be part of the system.

"The Port has 130 to 134 cameras, and there are four City of Oakland traffic cameras," she said. "As well as consideration in talking with [local transit agencies] BART, AC Transit, and Caltrans in cameras either that are in City of Oakland or bordering freeways. I'm not sure how many cameras they actually have."

One protestor shouted, "You can't vote on this if you don't know how many cameras you have!" Another attempted to show the above slide to the council members. All protestors were concerned about the increase in surveillance, arguing that simply having a complete picture of all current surveillance assets was itself likely to create problems.

UPDATE August 2, 2013 11:43am CT: In an e-mail sent to Ars, Troy Flint, a spokesperson for the Oakland Unified School District said that this relationship was "speculative/hopeful on their part and not the product of any discussions or agreements between the Port and the District."

"To that point, it's probably worth noting that, in a 2013 presentation, the Port uses an OUSD logo from three iterations ago that has been out-of-use for nearly a decade," he added. "I don't doubt that certain agencies may aspire to the citywide surveillance system that includes OUSD, but that does not mean we have been included in these plans. It certainly doesn't mean that we have collaborated in them merely because someone has invoked the name of organization."

A “mosaic” of data

Enlarge/ Local protestors distributed these flyers in the Oakland City Council meeting on Tuesday.

Cyrus Farivar

Other port cities across America have similar "Maritime Domain Awareness Centers" that have been constructed with federal grant money, including in the Delaware River in Pennsylvania. Unlike the others, however, the proposed creation of this DAC appears to have generated significant protest locally and attention nationally.

The project was initially conceived for Oakland four years ago, and mention (PDF) of it turns up as part of the Obama Administration's stimulus package ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act") from 2010. The concept appears to originate from a 2002-era Bush Administration policy document entitled "Securing the Homeland, Strengthening the Nation."

Local officials say that the center is simply an "upgrade" to an existing downtown Emergency Operations Center and is designed to combine 130 video surveillance cameras at the Port of Oakland (PDF)—the fifth-busiest port in the United States and the third-busiest on the West Coast—with those of the Oakland Police Department and the Oakland Fire Department.

"We have a lot further to go by creating this DAC. We're going to enhance the interoperability with those other agencies," Roberto Bernardo, a spokesperson for the Port of Oakland, told Ars. "To the extent that there is an emergency, all these agencies will be able to share and benefit from sharing of real-time information."

Bernardo cited the 1991 Oakland Hills fire as an example of a situation the city wants to avoid, describing the emergency response to it as "disjointed and siloed."

"People will be on their radios, relaying information—what this will do is that it will create a live video feed so that you don't have to rely on what people are saying on the radios," he added. "It's much more accurate to see something on a video screen than [to rely on] what people are saying over a radio channel."

But many privacy activists and civil libertarians don't see it that way. Protestors distributed "State Surveillance NO" flyers in the council chambers on Tuesday evening.

"This would pull together over one thousand cameras in the City and at the Port," Linda Lye, a local attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, told Ars. "This aggregation of information paints a detailed picture. An entire mosaic has a lot more info than any single tile. So the 'mere' combination is significant and intrusive."

"There are serious questions whether a system such as the DAC—which is intended to collect and store vast amounts of information about Oakland residents who have engaged in no wrongdoing—should ever be approved," she wrote. "But what is even more troubling is that the City has not yet developed any guidelines on privacy and data retention. Although the City's contract for the DAC takes pains to describe in minute detail the precise manner in which, for example, metal framing systems are to be installed (studs are to be placed no more than 2 inches from abutting walls), there are no privacy provisions in place at all."

Events of the past few years have influenced the views of both Oakland police and its citizens. In addition to violent protests in the wake of the recent George Zimmerman verdict earlier this month, Occupy Oakland demonstrations in 2011 resulted in significant violence and injury to some protestors. A new feature film, Fruitvale Station, chronicles the 2009 shooting death of a man at an Oakland subway (BART) station. In many cases, mistrust between local police and some communities goes back decades, and the plan for a DAC aggravates old tensions.

Some protestors became louder as the night went on.

Cyrus Farivar

“Spies for the surveillance state”

One of the many citizens who came to speak, Lye told the council that the DAC had inadequate privacy provisions, and three council members did add language just before the item was heard to include more oversight of the process. The additional language says:

City of Oakland-owned cameras operated by the City in non-residential areas, City of Oakland Shot Spotter Audio Sensor System, and License Plate Recognition system; and that the addition of any new surveillance, security sensor or video analytics feed or data sources shall require approval of the Council, including confirmation of compliance with the City's Privacy and Data Retention Policy.

"That is helpful, but we also urge you to take the further step, that all of the sources that would feed the DAC also need to have privacy policies in place," Lye added, and the council again added further language to reflect that suggestion.

Still, many loudly decried expanding police powers, linking this project to the National Security Agency's broad electronic surveillance programs. The most boisterous protestors wanted the entire program scrapped.

"I think it's a travesty that the [Department of Homeland Security] has tapped our firefighters to be spies for the surveillance state," said Mary Madden of the group Alameda County Against Drones.

Bernardo, the port spokesperson, claimed that the city needs this additional surveillance capability as there are "overlapping jurisdictions"—indeed, many trucks that receive goods at the Port of Oakland drive through West Oakland and other neighborhoods. He added that the city plans on imposing privacy policies starting next year.

"We are working with City of Oakland stakeholders and we are having public meetings to create those policies and procedures and [ensure] that data security is protected," he said. "Those policies and procedures will be brought to city council in early 2014."

Lee Tien, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, also said that the city's privacy assurances are not good enough.

"A thousand sensors that feed into one place is not the same as 1,000 identical sensors that each feed to 1,000 different places without exchanging information," he told Ars. "A network of cameras is rather unlike a bunch of un-networked cameras. Other variables include retention of the data, access to the data, or disclosure of the data. Much of the fight over privacy today is about aggregation and/or organization of already-collected data."

56 Reader Comments

The same Oakland whose Police Department that has come with a millimeter of a court ordered Federal takeover multiple times due to massive systemic misconduct (still under supervision due to reforms not taking place). Fantastic idea.

This homeland security money is a huge waste. It would be so much better spent on community programs to keep kids off the streets or hundreds of other things. But because of the terrorism panic, the feds get away with dumping billions of dollars on useless shit across the country. I'd much rather have taxation be local and have communities do cost/benefit analyses for expenditures, with states/feds only getting involved to provide general assistance to poor communities. Oakland would never spend its own money on shit like this.

She added that the federal government would provide grants for the operation of the facility for the first two years, but that after that, it would be incumbent on the Port and the City of Oakland to staff the DAC.

Meaning the surveillance would last 2 years, and the council members' families/friends would have to find new jobs unless the government adds more funds to the pile.

What astounds me to the core, is that they're putting up expensive, high-tech surveillance in high-crime areas, and the criminals aren't stealing the cameras en masse.

We have widespread hunger. A grossly disproportionate distribution of wealth and a disappearing middle class. Collapsing transportation infrastructure. Countless inner city neighborhoods that look like war zones. One of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world. One of the lowest math, science and reading rankings in the western world. The highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Yet we keep throwing money at surveillance/homeland security. It's beyond baffling.

She added that the federal government would provide grants for the operation of the facility for the first two years, but that after that, it would be incumbent on the Port and the City of Oakland to staff the DAC.

Meaning the surveillance would last 2 years, and the council members' families/friends would have to find new jobs unless the government adds more funds to the pile.

What astounds me to the core, is that they're putting up expensive, high-tech surveillance in high-crime areas, and the criminals aren't stealing the cameras en masse.

And like your typical council they fail to look at the long term costs. So the Federal government funds this for the first 2 years. How much is it going to cost for the city to monitor 130 or so cameras after that?

And like your typical council they fail to look at the long term costs. So the Federal government funds this for the first 2 years. How much is it going to cost for the city to monitor 130 or so cameras after that?

They. Don't. Care.

You have to stop thinking like a sane person with a conscience, because that's not who is in power.

They do not give a flying f*** what the consequences are. They don't have the brain wiring to even do that.

And Life goes on without a hitch. Turns out, didn't really need all that crap.

But you posted here about it! Now they know! They're coming to get you! Booga booga booga!

Uh, actually, yeah. The way I understand it, just the fact you have switched all those things off will create a hole in data that previously existed which will, most likely, create some sort of flag that will mark you as a Person of Interest. The thinking being that once you realized you were being tracked, you hid, so therefore you must have something to hide.

All thank you to your traitor friends over at Palantir. Oh, if you work at Palantir and are reading this, yes, please know I believe you are a traitor. You suck.

And like your typical council they fail to look at the long term costs. So the Federal government funds this for the first 2 years. How much is it going to cost for the city to monitor 130 or so cameras after that?

They. Don't. Care.

You have to stop thinking like a sane person with a conscience, because that's not who is in power.

They do not give a flying f*** what the consequences are. They don't have the brain wiring to even do that.

It's baffling to me that the vast majority of voters, directly or indirectly, time and time again support laws and politicians that are consistently and blatantly against the interests of the people. You're right, the politicians don't care. But interestingly enough, it seems not everyone knows that. That's what's baffling.

You have to think like a caveman: "Feds offer money. Me like money. Me take money, do what Feds say." I work with school districts every day; I can point to dozens of projects started with grant money, then abandoned and made useless when that ran out.

And Life goes on without a hitch. Turns out, didn't really need all that crap.

But you posted here about it! Now they know! They're coming to get you! Booga booga booga!

I am not hiding. It is the casual, mindless gathering and easy access to personal data that I object to.

This story is hitting the wires today -

The Guardian has released more information about a program that appears to let the NSA access almost any part of a web user's digital life. According to The Guardian, XKeyscore is available not only to members of the NSA but to outside analysts like Edward Snowden, who worked as a contractor for Booz Allen before his flight to Hong Kong, and its vast database allows users to find people by email address, name, phone number, type of browser, language used, IP address, or specific keywords.

We have widespread hunger. A grossly disproportionate distribution of wealth and a disappearing middle class. Collapsing transportation infrastructure. Countless inner city neighborhoods that look like war zones. One of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world. One of the lowest math, science and reading rankings in the western world. The highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Yet we keep throwing money at surveillance/homeland security. It's beyond baffling.

...not surprising in a Country where 45% of the people believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago...

This homeland security money is a huge waste. It would be so much better spent on community programs to keep kids off the streets or hundreds of other things. But because of the terrorism panic, the feds get away with dumping billions of dollars on useless shit across the country. I'd much rather have taxation be local and have communities do cost/benefit analyses for expenditures, with states/feds only getting involved to provide general assistance to poor communities. Oakland would never spend its own money on shit like this.

The kids on the streets in oakland really are the terrorists. That place has moved far beyond the need for hearings and feelgoodism, to requiring armed individuals on every street corner.

I personally do not see the surveillance setup changing anything, especially when they can't put cameras everywhere.

We have widespread hunger. A grossly disproportionate distribution of wealth and a disappearing middle class. Collapsing transportation infrastructure. Countless inner city neighborhoods that look like war zones. One of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world. One of the lowest math, science and reading rankings in the western world. The highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Yet we keep throwing money at surveillance/homeland security. It's beyond baffling.

No kidding. Doesn't sound like much of a home worth securing nowadays does it? :-(

We are spending all this time/money trying to stop the "unintended consequences" of the decisions being made, instead of targeting the cause of these problems directly.

She added that the federal government would provide grants for the operation of the facility for the first two years, but that after that, it would be incumbent on the Port and the City of Oakland to staff the DAC.

Meaning the surveillance would last 2 years, and the council members' families/friends would have to find new jobs unless the government adds more funds to the pile.

What astounds me to the core, is that they're putting up expensive, high-tech surveillance in high-crime areas, and the criminals aren't stealing the cameras en masse.

And like your typical council they fail to look at the long term costs. So the Federal government funds this for the first 2 years. How much is it going to cost for the city to monitor 130 or so cameras after that?

Whats so shocking is that its only 130 cameras.

If they are going to have a 24/7 center at the very least you need thousands of cameras that at every intersection in the city. If you are going to something dumb like this at least provide a real service in order to prevent crime on the city streets.

This homeland security money is a huge waste. It would be so much better spent on community programs to keep kids off the streets or hundreds of other things. But because of the terrorism panic, the feds get away with dumping billions of dollars on useless shit across the country. I'd much rather have taxation be local and have communities do cost/benefit analyses for expenditures, with states/feds only getting involved to provide general assistance to poor communities. Oakland would never spend its own money on shit like this.

The kids on the streets in oakland really are the terrorists. That place has moved far beyond the need for hearings and feelgoodism, to requiring armed individuals on every street corner.

I personally do not see the surveillance setup changing anything, especially when they can't put cameras everywhere.

Sure they can. They have a massive amount of funds provided by your hard earned tax dollars to do it with.

Y'all keep voting for sociopaths. It's not baffling in the slightest. They are simply acting according to their nature.

They. Don't. Care.

You have to stop thinking like a sane person with a conscience, because that's not who is in power.

They do not give a flying f*** what the consequences are. They don't have the brain wiring to even do that.

I edited the above for clarity ( but did not alter anything QD wrote ).

The problem is, the system is completely rigged to serve sociopaths. Not just voting, the whole system. It is designed to keep people ignorant and powerless, and keep the sociopaths in positions of power. It matters not who you vote for, and even if an honest person who truly wants to better things gets in, they will be quickly neutralized in whatever manner is most effective with the least trouble.

The only thing that will change it is the complete and utter destruction of the system. That won't happen by voting, or by any organized public action, the system is too powerful. It will happen though, as all powers eventually fail, rotting from the inside out until it collapses. The question is, will humanity* ever get its shit together, rise above the flaws in its nature and finally get on the right path to creating the Utopia that is possible?

Y'all keep voting for sociopaths. It's not baffling in the slightest. They are simply acting according to their nature.

They. Don't. Care.

You have to stop thinking like a sane person with a conscience, because that's not who is in power.

They do not give a flying f*** what the consequences are. They don't have the brain wiring to even do that.

I edited the above for clarity ( but did not alter anything QD wrote ).

The problem is, the system is completely rigged to serve sociopaths. Not just voting, the whole system. It is designed to keep people ignorant and powerless, and keep the sociopaths in positions of power. It matters not who you vote for, and even if an honest person who truly wants to better things gets in, they will be quickly neutralized in whatever manner is most effective with the least trouble.

The only thing that will change it is the complete and utter destruction of the system. That won't happen by voting, or by any organized public action, the system is too powerful. It will happen though, as all powers eventually fail, rotting from the inside out until it collapses. The question is, will humanity* ever get its shit together, rise above the flaws in its nature and finally get on the right path to creating the Utopia that is possible?

* It's more than just a U.S problem, no doubt.

Probably not. It seems that generally the corrupt are the ones with the desire for power. The good person rarely has the desire to rule over others.

[quote="The kids on the streets in oakland really are the terrorists. That place has moved far beyond the need for hearings and feelgoodism, to requiring armed individuals on every street corner.

I personally do not see the surveillance setup changing anything, especially when they can't put cameras everywhere.

If it's that bad, there should be more police on the streets working with communities. Police should be present, involved, and ideally from the communities they're working in. Surveillance cameras are impersonal and adversarial, making people feel oppressed, which IMO does not discourage crime.

But even in poverty-stricken ghettos, it's possible to reach kids. Big brother programs give kids that don't have fathers men to look up to. Community centers provide safe places for kids to play and socialize so they don't end up on the street. After-school sports also provide safe places for kids and let them get out their energy in a constructive manner. Tutors help kids stay on track with their school work while their parents are working or otherwise absent.

We have widespread hunger. A grossly disproportionate distribution of wealth and a disappearing middle class. Collapsing transportation infrastructure. Countless inner city neighborhoods that look like war zones. One of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world. One of the lowest math, science and reading rankings in the western world. The highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Yet we keep throwing money at surveillance/homeland security. It's beyond baffling.

No kidding. Doesn't sound like much of a home worth securing nowadays does it? :-(

We are spending all this time/money trying to stop the "unintended consequences" of the decisions being made, instead of targeting the cause of these problems directly.

Well, that's the genious of it all. You get all this stuff in place to "find and combat terrorism", but really it's a prep to keep the masses, that are slowly getting desperate, in check when the time comes. Frogs are boiled slowly. You can't create a police state over-night; folks would rebel. But, when you do it to "combat terrorism" and "protect the citizens" (that are having a hard time finding jobs, earning a living wage, raising a family, fending off criminals, being abused by political schemes, etc, etc) then you can slowly indoctrinate them into a police state.

I remember my humanities teacher saying about a country taking over another country ... the first generation experiences oppression, the second generation experiences acceptance, the third generation experiences assimilation. (Something like that).

People today are upset over what's going on, b/c they see the change. But, people tomorrow (kids today) won't be. They will have been raised in an environment that already has all of this in place. And they will just accept it as common place.

Now get back to work, Citizen 092834. Your 10% behind quota for the day. You don't want another demerit, do you? Your family won't get food for today if you do.

[quote="The kids on the streets in oakland really are the terrorists. That place has moved far beyond the need for hearings and feelgoodism, to requiring armed individuals on every street corner.

I personally do not see the surveillance setup changing anything, especially when they can't put cameras everywhere.

If it's that bad, there should be more police on the streets working with communities. Police should be present, involved, and ideally from the communities they're working in. Surveillance cameras are impersonal and adversarial, making people feel oppressed, which IMO does not discourage crime.

But even in poverty-stricken ghettos, it's possible to reach kids. Big brother programs give kids that don't have fathers men to look up to. Community centers provide safe places for kids to play and socialize so they don't end up on the street. After-school sports also provide safe places for kids and let them get out their energy in a constructive manner. Tutors help kids stay on track with their school work while their parents are working or otherwise absent.

We're talking about decisions made by politicians here. Begone with all your sensible logic stuff.

I think this might be useful if, say, a child was kidnapped and the culprit was fleeing. Immediate, connected tracking could prove to be the difference in acquiring the child alive. I'd have great misgivings about the current, federal implementation of this however. I think these are the kind of restrictions I'd want in place:

- System would be owned and operated by the judicial branch, not the executive. The executive branch would have to ask the judicial branch for the data/feed.

- Encryption and permission restrictions would need to be in place and security-expert vetted BEFORE it is implemented and goes live.

- Operators would have to clear a significant background check.

- Warrants would absolutely be required and the need must be for immediate danger.

- Retention would be for a short while only (say a week) and then the data would be hard purged. This would enforce it's usage for immediate need only and limit any kind of fishing expedition.

I'd probably be on-board if restrictions like these were in place.

UPDATE:

One other requirement: I'd want accountability and transparency in place too.

To be honest, I was hoping that this program would make Oakland more of a police state than it actually does (which is to say, not really). Regardless of the means of doing so, I feel like Oakland has a serious crime and violence problem that needs to be addressed. Will these cameras help improve the situation? Probably not.

I think this might be useful if, say, a child was kidnapped and the culprit was fleeing. Immediate, connected tracking could prove to be the difference in acquiring the child alive.

You can always come up with a scenario whereby if we just did this one bad thing, lives would be saved. After all, if we *just* locked up all the males post puberty, there'd be no male on female rape. If we *just* required all children be raised in a locked creche by robots, there'd be no child abduction. If we just required every citizen wear a behavior modification implant, there'd be no ______.

While I mostly agree with your post -- freedom and security are a balance, not absolutes -- as soon we indulge in playing the what-if scenario game there's no logical end. There's always another what-if.

Follow the money. In 2 years these cameras and systems will be in need of an upgrade. Then DHS can give one of their corporate sponsors another contract to install a bigger, better, though not cheaper system. Everyone (as defined by DHS) is happy: cops get new toys, local politicians are shown to be for public safety, and the malcontents are identified.

Nice to see where our priorities are. I would argue that a far more serious threat, especially in cities like Oakland, is the proliferation of young punk gangsters with readily available handguns.

How many murders every day? Compared to how many death-by-terrorist incidents?

It seems like you and many others haven't read the article and links fully (shocker!)

While this funding is coming from Homeland, it will be in place for almost all of Oakland. The plan seems to call for ~1000 cameras covering the Port and higher crime areas, schools and highways, and also includes Spotshotter installations, mobile license plate readers, and other systems (all of this can be gleaned just from looking at the first image in the body of the story).

I would think that would substantially help with the "young punk gangster" problem.

As someone mentioned, so would more cops...but more cops are WAY more expensive than this type of electronic surveillance.

Nice to see where our priorities are. I would argue that a far more serious threat, especially in cities like Oakland, is the proliferation of young punk gangsters with readily available handguns.

How many murders every day? Compared to how many death-by-terrorist incidents?

It seems like you and many others haven't read the article and links fully (shocker!)

While this funding is coming from Homeland, it will be in place for almost all of Oakland. The plan seems to call for ~1000 cameras covering the Port and higher crime areas, schools and highways, and also includes Spotshotter installations, mobile license plate readers, and other systems (all of this can be gleaned just from looking at the first image in the body of the story).

I would think that would substantially help with the "young punk gangster" problem.

As someone mentioned, so would more cops...but more cops are WAY more expensive than this type of electronic surveillance.

These are good points; it's also significant that the gunshot detectors are tied into the system.

It's easy to oppose something like this if you pretend it will have no benefits. However, it will clearly have some benefits and at least some positive affect on crime rates. If I lived in a bad area where street crimes such as muggings and shootings were common, and the city offered to put up cameras and gunshot detectors and to tie them into a 24/7 monitoring station, I would be all in favor of it, even though there might be unresolved privacy issues. People's physical safety is much more important, and this system will provide far more security than the handful of cops you could get for the same amount of money.

None of which is to say that the privacy issues aren't also important, or that they can't be fixed quickly so as to permit implementation of the CCTV system without much delay. But, again, if I lived or worked in an area that put me at risk of being shot, I wouldn't want to wait two years while privacy advocates living in safe areas debated whether the system met *their* concerns.

Persistent surveillance of an entire city center for a paltry $2 million?

Doesn't get much cheaper. This is why every city in every country in the world will deploy these systems. Once they're installed, their efficiency and ability to reduce crime is magnitudes cheaper than human counterparts.